If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are currently viewing our forums as a GUEST.

This allows you to read, but not participate in our discussions.

This also prevents you from downloading attachments and seeing some of our specialized sub-forums.

Registration is free and painless and requires absolutely no personal information other than a valid email address.

You can register for our history forums here. [this reminder disappears once you are registered]

Asymetrical or "Hybrid" Warfare

04 Jul 15, 16:17

I realize there likely is another thread or three on this somewhere in the back pages, but time to re-examine the concept as it applies in today's developing "history" and the future implications and applications that militaries need to consider, address, and plan for.

The ‘new’ type of war that finally has the Pentagon’s attention
EXCERPT:
The Pentagon is increasingly concerned about how to combat “hybrid warfare,” the combination of stealth invasion, local proxy forces and international propaganda that Russia used to annex Crimea and destabilize eastern Ukraine, U.S. officials said.

Army Gen. Martin E. Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, on Thursday released the 2015 National Military Strategy, in which he cited Russia’s actions in Ukraine and said “hybrid conflicts” will persist well into the future.

This kind of warfare transcends traditional notions of one military confronting another by incorporating conventional and unconventional forces, information warfare such as propaganda, as well as economic measures to undermine an enemy, according to Frank Hoffman, a professor at the National Defense University.

“The critique was, and still is, that America’s view of war is overly simplified,” he said. “We think of things in black-and-white terms.”

“How do we confront cyberattacks, propaganda campaigns and hybrid warfare?” Carter asked during a speech in Berlin. “How do we ensure we can deal with more than one challenge at a time?”

The newly fashionable term is a relatively old concept; its essential elements had been part of Russia’s and China’s military doctrines long before the Kremlin sent its so-called “little green men” into Crimea, Hoffman said.
....http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politi...ion/ar-AAcxwxR

Whiskey for my men, and beer for my horses.TANSTAAFL = There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free LunchBock's First Law of History: The Past shapes the Present, which forms the Future. *

I realize there likely is another thread or three on this somewhere in the back pages, but time to re-examine the concept as it applies in today's developing "history" and the future implications and applications that militaries need to consider, address, and plan for.

The ‘new’ type of war that finally has the Pentagon’s attention
EXCERPT:
The Pentagon is increasingly concerned about how to combat “hybrid warfare,” the combination of stealth invasion, local proxy forces and international propaganda that Russia used to annex Crimea and destabilize eastern Ukraine, U.S. officials said.

Army Gen. Martin E. Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, on Thursday released the 2015 National Military Strategy, in which he cited Russia’s actions in Ukraine and said “hybrid conflicts” will persist well into the future.

This kind of warfare transcends traditional notions of one military confronting another by incorporating conventional and unconventional forces, information warfare such as propaganda, as well as economic measures to undermine an enemy, according to Frank Hoffman, a professor at the National Defense University.

“The critique was, and still is, that America’s view of war is overly simplified,” he said. “We think of things in black-and-white terms.”

“How do we confront cyberattacks, propaganda campaigns and hybrid warfare?” Carter asked during a speech in Berlin. “How do we ensure we can deal with more than one challenge at a time?”

The newly fashionable term is a relatively old concept; its essential elements had been part of Russia’s and China’s military doctrines long before the Kremlin sent its so-called “little green men” into Crimea, Hoffman said.
....http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politi...ion/ar-AAcxwxR

One might add Malaya, Indonesia, Vietnam and so on.... not to score a point in debate, but we need not go further with Iraq and ther places. 'Conventional' war may not be dead, but from many decades other forces, other ways have become a battlefield reality.

Per Ardua ad Astra

Comment

Hybrid warfare is not new its been a feature of almost all major wars from way back. Cyber warfare is new but the rest is very old, So for example in the Peninsular whilst the Anglo Portuguese army faced the French Wellington had Grant and Wilson encouraging guerilla warfare, espionage and assassination etc on the part of the Spanish and Portuguese population in enemy occupied areas. Propaganda was also in use (prof Stephen Badesly has some interesting insights on this)
When one side has a numerical and/or technical advantage in traditional conventional forces the other will always turn to other methods to try and redress the balance.

Comment

I realize there likely is another thread or three on this somewhere in the back pages, but time to re-examine the concept as it applies in today's developing "history" and the future implications and applications that militaries need to consider, address, and plan for.

The ‘new’ type of war that finally has the Pentagon’s attention
EXCERPT:
The Pentagon is increasingly concerned about how to combat “hybrid warfare,” the combination of stealth invasion, local proxy forces and international propaganda that Russia used to annex Crimea and destabilize eastern Ukraine, U.S. officials said.

Army Gen. Martin E. Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, on Thursday released the 2015 National Military Strategy, in which he cited Russia’s actions in Ukraine and said “hybrid conflicts” will persist well into the future.

This kind of warfare transcends traditional notions of one military confronting another by incorporating conventional and unconventional forces, information warfare such as propaganda, as well as economic measures to undermine an enemy, according to Frank Hoffman, a professor at the National Defense University.

“The critique was, and still is, that America’s view of war is overly simplified,” he said. “We think of things in black-and-white terms.”

“How do we confront cyberattacks, propaganda campaigns and hybrid warfare?” Carter asked during a speech in Berlin. “How do we ensure we can deal with more than one challenge at a time?”

The newly fashionable term is a relatively old concept; its essential elements had been part of Russia’s and China’s military doctrines long before the Kremlin sent its so-called “little green men” into Crimea, Hoffman said.
....http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politi...ion/ar-AAcxwxR

This is interesting, because I thought that the US had some notable recent (or relatively recent) successes in these types on conflicts.

I'm thinking of how the US confronted quite a few of the Central and South American communist guerilla groups, Nicaragua springs to mind particularly. The supply, training and employment of indigenous forces (the Contras) to fight that conflict (without involving substantial conventional US forces) was quite efficient.

Couldn't a similar strategy be employed in the types of conflicts mentioned above?

Comment

The Kurds seem to have worked out better as a proxy force with which to combat ISIS.

But the US/anyone else needs to determine what long term relationship with Turkey their policy demands before they start equipping/training the Kurds as well as analysing where the Kurds are going to end up.